OLA MARY GASKINS, APPELLANT,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the appellant lacked standing to challenge the legality of the search and seizure because her personal rights were not violated.
Police entered an apartment without a warrant to arrest the appellant's husband. Upon entry, the appellant attempted to dispose of narcotics, was arre…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Standing To Challenge Search cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant seeks reversal of her conviction of violating the narcotics laws on the theory that her motion to suppress as evidence the drugs which the police found in her possession was erroneously denied. Her theory is that the police illegally entered the apartment where she was arrested and unlawfully seized the drugs they found in her possession.
The officers had no search warrant but knew a warrant of arrest was out standing for appellant’s husband. Believing him to be within, they used violence to gain entrance to the apartment. As the police entered, appellant rushed to the bathroom and attempted to dispose of three envelopes containing narcotics, but was prevented from doing so by one of the officers. She was arrested and other drugs were found on her person. Her husband, who was in the apartment, was taken into custody under the outstanding warrant of arrest.
The appellant was merely a guest in the apartment she says was illegally entered, and does not claim to have had any interest therein. She disclaims ownership of the drugs she contends were illegally seized. She herself was not searched until after she had been arrested with the narcotics openly in her possession. Since the appellant's personal rights were not violated, she has no standing to contend the entry and subsequent seizure were unlawful. Jeffers v. United States, 1950, 88 U.S.App.D.C. 58, 187 F. 2d 498, affirmed 1951, 342 U.S. 48, 72 S.Ct. 93, 96 L.Ed. 59; Washington v. United States, 92 U.S.App.D.C. 31, 202 F. 2d 214, certiorari denied 1953, 345 U.S. 956, 73 S.Ct. 938, 97 L.Ed. 1377, and cases there cited.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Jones v. United States, 362 U.S. 257 (U.S. 1960)
-
Christensen v. United States, 259 F.2d 192 (D.C. Cir. 1958)
-
Burge v. United States, 333 F.2d 210 (9th Cir. 1964)
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- United States v. Jeffers, 342 U.S. 48 (U.S. 1951)
- Jeffers v. United States, 187 F.2d 498 (D.C. Cir. 1950)
- Castle v. United States, 202 F.2d 214 (D.C. Cir. 1953)
- United States v. Marr, 345 U.S. 956 (U.S. 1953)
- Washington v. United States, 345 U.S. 956 (U.S. 1953)